export_asset

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only or potentially destructive (e.g., does it overwrite existing output files?). It doesn't explain what happens on failure, whether directories are created, or any side effects. For a tool that writes to disk, this is a significant transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that is brief and folds into the JSON payload cleanly. It's not verbose and is easily scannable. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing opportunities for elaboration on nuances like file extension handling, which could be covered in one or two more sentences without becoming bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the tool as an export operation, the description is underspecified. It lacks details on supported output formats, whether the output file's extension dictates the format, and how it differs from similar file operations. Since there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more weight in explaining return behaviors, but it doesn't.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage with both parameters described. However, the description itself adds nothing beyond the raw schema. The parameter descriptions are minimal: 'Asset to export' and 'Output file path on disk' provide the bare minimum. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, but the thin descriptions like 'Asset to export' are terse.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Export an asset to an external file format' has a specific verb and resource, and the parameters clarify the user provides an asset path and output path. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling 'import_asset' beyond the direction of transfer, which is implied. It clearly states the verb 'export' and the resource 'asset,' which is adequate but not exceptional.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the broad set of sibling tools including 'import_asset', 'consolidate_assets', 'validate_assets', and 'run_gauntlet', explicit guidance on when to choose export_asset would be valuable. There's no mention of supported file formats, typical use cases, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.